The issue with a GM's value, is, unlike a player, you can subdivide his role into multiple roles.

If the ideal GM can handle the owner, handle the media, understand scouting, understand advanced stats, manage a staff, manage a budget, etc., there's no reason you can't divide that up among 3 or 4 people.

It's as if you could have separate players do the fielding, throwing, hitting and baserunning parts of playing CF. It would raise replacement level tremendously, and lower pay.

I've said it before, and will say it again, for the $1.5-2.0M you pay an Epstein or a Cashman, I could assemble a competent front office of 6-10 Primates.

I've said it before, and will say it again, for the $1.5-2.0M you pay an Epstein or a Cashman, I could assemble a competent front office of 6-10 Primates.

But isn't the point that you need ONE person to fill all those roles? I mean there already is a head of scouting, head of minor league development, head of statistical analysis (for many clubs), some teams I'm sure even employ a budget guy. But ultimately you need one person making executive decisions and managing all the department heads. That's what they pay a GM to do.

I can get six hitters to do what Albert Pujols does too, but that's not how it works. I don't see how you divide the GM into several roles. He (or she) is THE person running the baseball operation of things. Having several people in charge will succeed about as well as the Cubs College of Coaches.

I think GMs are ridiculously underpaid and I wouldn't be surprised if that begins to change now that they are more highly visible. OTOH, I wonder if the more attractive incentive for a GM isn't necessarily his (or her) salary, but the resources needed to succeed. It seems its one of those few jobs where perhaps salary takes a back seat to personal success and fame.

I've said it before, and will say it again, for the $1.5-2.0M you pay an Epstein or a Cashman, I could assemble a competent front office of 6-10 Primates.

I can top that -- for a fraction that that salary I can assemble an incompetent front office of primates.

If the ideal GM can handle the owner, handle the media, understand scouting, understand advanced stats, manage a staff, manage a budget, etc., there's no reason you can't divide that up among 3 or 4 people.

The ideal GM would be superior in all of these areas. He would also have great people skills and would be an adept manager of people. He doesn't have to be the foremost authority in any one particular area but needs to be able to identify and hire the best people to assist him.

It's as if you could have separate players do the fielding, throwing, hitting and baserunning parts of playing CF.

Sounds suspiciously like modern football.

I've said it before, and will say it again, for the $1.5-2.0M you pay an Epstein or a Cashman, I could assemble a competent front office of 6-10 Primates.

I wouldn't assume that folks who never worked in an industry can successfully step into significant roles.

But isn't the point that you need ONE person to fill all those roles? I mean there already is a head of scouting, head of minor league development, head of statistical analysis (for many clubs), some teams I'm sure even employ a budget guy. But ultimately you need one person making executive decisions and managing all the department heads. That's what they pay a GM to do.

The ideal GM would be superior in all of these areas. He would also have great people skills and would be an adept manager of people. He doesn't have to be the foremost authority in any one particular area but needs to be able to identify and hire the best people to assist him.

But at the end of the day, all the GM (or Pres.) needs to be is a good excutive. A manager of managers.

I'm sure any successful CEO of a reasonable size company could be a good GM. CEO's change industries all the time. And as far as corporations go, an MLB team is tiny. A single product, a few hundred employees, and a couple hundred million in revenue. Trivial as far as CEO roles go.

There's no reason the GM ever needs to 1) value a player, 2) negotiate a contract, 3) talk to the media, 4) decide on a draft pick. All that can be sourced to subordinates.

I wouldn't assume that folks who never worked in an industry can successfully step into significant roles.

Executives do this all the time. At a middle management level, I went from consulting, to commercial real estate, to bond insurance, to life insurance.

I've said it before, and will say it again, for the $1.5-2.0M you pay an Epstein or a Cashman, I could assemble a competent front office of 6-10 Primates.

Now that's some o'erweening pride.

So who does the another (singular, executive) GM call if they want to make a trade?

wrong thread

I can top that -- for a fraction that that salary I can assemble an incompetent front office of primates.

Who among us wouldn't still hang out on BTF during work hours if we actually were employed by a front office?

If the ideal GM can handle the owner, handle the media, understand scouting, understand advanced stats, manage a staff, manage a budget, etc., there's no reason you can't divide that up among 3 or 4 people.

You also need someone who won't poop his pants making a decision with literally everyone watching, and such people won't share power. It takes both brains and testosterone to be good, but I think in baseball a good exec is more likely to be overendowed with the latter. Branch Rickey was brilliant, but he also had guts spilling out the wazoo.

I wrote this in greater detail here, but essentially my point is that by hiring an Epstein/Alderson reputation with reflective salary, it increases the chances for such a GM to avoid getting DePodesta'd by ownership/media.

Who among us wouldn't still hang out on BTF during work hours if we actually were employed by a front office?

If teams aren't already doing this, they should. Not necessarily BTF but they should have someone throwing rumors around the internet to get a sense of what people think, what fans will think of the move, what people like us will think. That shouldn't be the primary or secondary driver of a decision but some research of what your customers are going to think of moves is probably not the worst idea in the world.

my point is that by hiring an Epstein/Alderson reputation with reflective salary, it increases the chances for such a GM to avoid getting DePodesta'd by ownership/media.

That's a really good point Howard.

So who does the another (singular, executive) GM call if they want to make a trade?

Whoever is designated as the trade negotiator. Does it matter who the mouthpiece is? Any significant transaction is a group decision in every front office, up to, and including, ownership signoff.

Now that's some o'erweening pride.

It is much more confidence in the intelligence and competence of posters here. All I'd plan to do is chair the committee.

What was Theo and Cashman's big managerial experience before becoming GM? Mostly low level fron office roles. I'd much rather have someone equally intelligent and in love with baseball who has demonstrated success in business or law or another highly competitive field.

I could assemble a competent front office of 6-10 Primates.

The Chicago Cubs Graduate School of GMs:

Minor leagues: Mike Emeigh
Player acquisition and contract negotiation: Harveys Wallbanger
Statistical analysis: SugarBear Blanks
Spiritual Advisor: Snapper
Token Libertarian: David Nieporent
Media Relations: Oh, too many to choose from ... Ray DiPerna, bbc, MGL are the top choices
Mascot: Shooty

Player acquisition and contract negotiation: Harveys Wallbanger

HWB: That's a nice piece of property you have there. Be a shame if it got flooded out.

PLAYER: Where do I sign?

There's no reason the GM ever needs to 1) value a player, 2) negotiate a contract, 3) talk to the media, 4) decide on a draft pick.

No, but he needs to set the strategy for all of these, as ultimately they're his or her responsibilty.

If teams aren't already doing this, they should. Not necessarily BTF but they should have someone throwing rumors around the internet to get a sense of what people think, what fans will think of the move, what people like us will think.

Ah crowdsourcing. Or as I like to call it 'None of us is as dumb as all of us.'

Whoever is designated as the trade negotiator. Does it matter who the mouthpiece is? Any significant transaction is a group decision in every front office, up to, and including, ownership signoff.

So who fires someone or smacks someone around when the "trading guy" wants to trade for someone who plays the same position as a highly-regarded prospect, but is blocked by the "player draft and development guy", and they start beating each other up in the media? The owner?

Usually the owner hires someone to do that, and calls him the "General Manager".

So who fires someone or smacks someone around when the "trading guy" wants to trade for someone who plays the same position as a highly-regarded prospect, but is blocked by the "player draft and development guy", and they start beating each other up in the media? The owner?

Usually the owner hires someone to do that, and calls him the "General Manager".

I said above, the general manager manages the other executives, so yes, he "smacks them around".

I never said you didn't need a GM, just that any competent executive would do.

[23] Ah, sorry. I may have been selectively reading. In that case, I'll refer to [20] as the more salient point.

I suspect that's a skill that a "competent executive" has, though I'll argue that a fair amount of domain knowledge and industry connectivity is necessary, just like in any high profile executive position.

[23] Ah, sorry. I may have been selectively reading. In that case, I'll refer to [20] as the more salient point.

I suspect that's a skill that a "competent executive" has, though I'll argue that a fair amount of domain knowledge and industry connectivity is necessary, just like in any high profile executive position.

Well yes, but, executives, even Fortune 500 CEOs change industies all the time. They learn the new industry.

As far as strategy, it's more straightforward in baseball than most industries: acquire good players as cheaply as possible, and assemble as much talent as your budget will allow.

The one area exempt from my claims is scouting. That requires "lifers" who've evaluated talent for many years.

There's no reason the GM ever needs to 1) value a player,

But this is the No. 1 responsibility of a GM, and as soon as soon as this responsibility is delegated to a subordinate, the subordinate, in effect, becomes the GM. (And if the subordinate does an above-average job, he'd be named some other team's GM within a year's time.)

The GM can delegate stats work, he can delegate scouting and development, he can delegate contract negotiation and dealing with agents, but as soon as the GM isn't seen as the "decider" when it comes to ML player personnel, he's not the GM anymore.

But this is the No. 1 responsibility of a GM, and as soon as soon as this responsibility is delegated to a subordinate, the subordinate, in effect, becomes the GM. (And if the subordinate does an above-average job, he'd be named some other team's GM within a year's time.)

The GM can delegate stats work, he can delegate scouting and development, he can delegate contract negotiation and dealing with agents, but as soon as the GM isn't seen as the "decider" when it comes to ML player personnel, he's not the GM anymore.

Disconcur. The head of M&A at Goldman Sachs never values a company.

Why is it one person valuing a player? I don't want a $100M+ decision to be left to the judgement and prejudices of any one person.

The valuation of talent for significant decisions should be based on a consensus of multiple talented individuals from varied disciplines (scouting, stats, player development, marketing, etc.).

As I said above, if I'm GM, I chair the committe and establish the process.

To continue #27, if my team is deciding whether to sign player X, I want the following info brought to the table by the relevent experts (just off the top of my head):

1) What do the projection systems say? (director of analytics)
- publicly available and our internal system
- includes multiple scenarios, 10%-ile, 25%-ile, etc.

2) What do our major league scouts say? (director of scouting)
- how are his tools? are they deteriorating? does he make adjustment? any character issues?

3) What is his medical outlook? (medical director)
- injury status, what do he tests and imaging look like?, bio-mechanical evaluation, etc.

4) What do our player development folks say? (director of player development)
- any obvious flaws, things our coaches think they can improve, how's his work ethic?
- what are our internal options instead of signing x?

5) How marketable is he? (director of marketing)
- will he drive revenue besides his contribution to winning?
- how much will incremental wins drive our revenue overall?

6) How greedy will he likely be in negotiations? (chief negotiator)
- will he go for highest $, or are there other factors? where do we rate on his preferences?
- who's his agent, how does he act? do we have a good relationship? is he honest?

7) Who else is in on the bidding? (asst. GM)
- where is the overall market going in terms of contracts, $/WAR, etc.
- what are the other FA/trade options if we don't sign x? what will they cost?

The core group of 6-10 execs should weigh all that evidence and come to a valuation, and negotiate accordingly, while lining up options B, C, and D.

If I trust those 7 guys around the table, I don't have to know who player X is, or ever have seen him play, to chair the meeting.

snapper -- Where did you get the idea that current GMs are making such decisions on their own rather than just as you described in #28? I didn't suggest, in #26, that a GM should be a lone wolf. I simply said that the GM needs to have clear final say when it comes to ML player personnel moves, as opposed to delegating such responsibilities, as you suggested earlier.

At first, you seemed to be describing a good team president or team CEO rather than a good GM. But then, in #28, you don't seem to be suggesting anything new at all vis-a-vis the current decision-making process in use around MLB. #28 is basically, "Meet this new GM, exactly like most (or all) current GMs."

Has any GM had a better year than Doug Melvin? After years of doodling all of the sudden he gets a shot of management Viagra and goes all in to overhaul his starting rotation, picks up a platoon outfielder who does awesome for almost nothing, signs his top pinch-hitter for chump change and 60% of the way through the season gets a top-notch relief pitcher for nachoes and a six-pack.

That's some wheeling-dealing there folks. I don't WHAT happened to Doug. I don't know if the guy IS Doug. But whatever he's taking, I will have seconds.

Alex Anthopoulos has probably had a better year. He got value for Vernon Wells and came out the winner in 2 trades with Doug Melvin in getting Lawrie and Villanueva for Marcum and a bag of balls. Rasmus deal will probably turn out to be a winner too. People keep saying that the Lawrie/Marcum deal was a win win, but Lawrie has been as valuable as Marcum in half the time and is a lot cheaper and around for a lot longer and the Brewers could use a 3B right now as much as a 3rd starter.

Alex Anthopoulos has probably had a better year. He got value for Vernon Wells and came out the winner in 2 trades with Doug Melvin in getting Lawrie and Villanueva for Marcum and a bag of balls. Rasmus deal will probably turn out to be a winner too. People keep saying that the Lawrie/Marcum deal was a win win, but Lawrie has been as valuable as Marcum in half the time and is a lot cheaper and around for a lot longer and the Brewers could use a 3B right now as much as a 3rd starter.

As discussed in the Toronto parts of the recent Epstein-to-Cubs thread, it's amazing how many people believe process is more impressive than playoffs.

Winning championships is still the goal, but you still have to consider situation both teams were in to start the year and how their moves have effected their chances of making the playoffs in the future.

In a vacuum I agree with #32, but in reality what you do now as a GM may take a year or two (or more) to bear fruit. So I get why AA is getting love despite missing the playoffs.

In a vacuum I agree with #32, but in reality what you do now as a GM may take a year or two (or more) to bear fruit. So I get why AA is getting love despite missing the playoffs.

Right, but at some point, results need to matter. Melvin (and Attanasio) clearly had a plan for 2011, he/they implemented it, and now the Brewers are up 2-0 in the NLDS. Meanwhile, Toronto regressed by 4 wins in 2011 and finished in 4th place yet again. Overvaluing hypothetical future impact is a major inefficiency at the moment among the baseball intelligentsia.

I wouldn't assume that folks who never worked in an industry can successfully step into significant roles.

Executives do this all the time.

I am actually interested in whether this is true or not, so I did a little study. Here are the top ten Fortune 500 companies, and their CEOs' background:

1. Wal-Mart. CEO Mike Duke has spent his entire career in retail.
2. ExxonMobil. CEO Rex Tillerson has been with Exxon since 1975.
3. Chevron: CEO John Watson has been with Chevron since 1980.
4. ConocoPhilips: CEO James Mulva started with Philips in 1973.
5. Fannie Mae: CEO Mike Williams started with Fannie Mae in 1991.
6. General Electric: CEO Jeffrey Immelt started with GE in 1982.
7. Berkshire Hathaway: CEO Warren Buffett has been there since the beginning of time (actually, since 1964).
8. General Motors: CEO Daniel Akerson was with MCI, Nextel, and the Carlyle Group before joining GM in 2010.
9. Bank of America: CEO Brian Moynihan has worked in banking since 1993; joined B of A in 2004.
10. Ford Motor: CEO Alan Mulally was at Boeing until joining Ford in 2006.

So that's one out of ten who was named CEO after working in a different industry (two out of ten if you count Mulally, but I wouldn't). And that's probably because the auto industry was very consciously looking for new blood at the time.

It looks to me like American businesses do the same thing that baseball teams do, nurturing talent for years or bringing in people from other companies in the same industry.

Post 33:

So if Toronto makes the playoffs in 2014 AA had a better 2011?

Is that the position?

Hey, not looking to pick a fight. Just curious. So if you want to get your hackles up and go all TDF on me just save us both the nuisance and put me on ignore.

Where would the Yankees rank in the Fortune 500? 5000th? 50,000th?? They are a 1-2 billion $ property. That's not that big, is it?

Maybe I am confused but those companies are much bigger, more complex entities than baseball franchises.

I rarely say this, but I think Snapper has the right of this. You don't need a super genius GM, you need excellent director-level execs and someone who can integrate the data and manage the directors, talk to the media, and hobnob with the Boys Club.

I think he's probably wrong about using Primates as the execs; Certainly he could pull an analyst/marketer or two out here... but a Director of Scouting? Sports Medicine?

I've said it before, and will say it again, for the $1.5-2.0M you pay an Epstein or a Cashman, I could assemble a competent front office of 6-10 Primates.

Man, some of you guys are truly insufferable. I'd be irritated by it, but it's kind of precious.

Cubs have asked for permission to talk to Epstein, according to MLB Network.

Man, some of you guys are truly insufferable. I'd be irritated by it, but it's kind of precious.

Everybody likes to think they can sit in the big chair. It's natural. Seen it every industry where the rank and file are convinced if THEY were calling the shots then X and Y and Z would NEVER have happened and oh what they would do different.

And you know what? Every so often Joe has a good point.

On ONE of the matters at hand. It's just that there are 101 matters that demand answers. And if you get too many of them wrong the organization is in BIG trouble. And sometimes it's only getting ONE thing wrong.

And who knows for sure what the one thing IS.

Until it's too late.

I rarely say this, but I think Snapper has the right of this. You don't need a super genius GM, you need excellent director-level execs and someone who can integrate the data and manage the directors, talk to the media, and hobnob with the Boys Club.

But the GM *is* the "director-level exec" responsible for ML player personnel, so how would it help matters to replace that expertise with some generalist or management whiz whose last job was at AT&T or General Motors? And who would make the final call? Would every personnel move be subject to a strict vote of the people outlined in #28, rather than those people simply having input?

Where would the Yankees rank in the Fortune 500? 5000th? 50,000th?? They are a 1-2 billion $ property. That's not that big, is it?

Those examples may not be directly relevant, but (a) they're a lot more relevant than Snapper's example of himself moving from middle management in bond insurance to middle management in life insurance, and (b) it's not all that easy to find the employment history of Donald J. Tomnitz, the CEO of the 499th-ranked company in the Fortune 500.

Why is it one person valuing a player? I don't want a $100M+ decision to be left to the judgement and prejudices of any one person.

Ultimately you need to have one person responsible for the decision otherwise there is no accountability. That person is in turn going to want the freedom to make the decision based on whatever factors he considers important, even if it means overriding other people in the organization.

Disconcur. The head of M&A at Goldman Sachs never values a company.

A perfect example of lack of accountability.

But the GM *is* the "director-level exec" responsible for ML player personnel, so how would it help matters to replace that expertise with some generalist or management whiz whose last job was at AT&T or General Motors? And who would make the final call? Would every personnel move be subject to a strict vote of the people outlined in #28, rather than those people simply having input?

Right, Theo Epstein isn't the CEO of the Boston Red Sox. John Henry is the CEO of the Boston Red Sox. And he has done exactly what snapper suggests by delegating the player personnel responsibilities to Theo Epstein.

Right, Theo Epstein isn't the CEO of the Boston Red Sox. John Henry is the CEO of the Boston Red Sox. And he has done exactly what snapper suggests by delegating the player personnel responsibilities to Theo Epstein.

I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing, but that's exactly my point: Nothing in snapper's #28 would be new to an MLB front office. He's just slapping a new label on the same M.O. (Earlier in the thread, snapper seemed to want to demote the GM to the same level as the directors of scouting, player development, etc., and then have some new GM/CEO "chair the meetings" and be the face of the organization, but all that would do is add bureaucracy.)

I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing

I was agreeing.

I was agreeing.

Ha ha. Oops. I've been in Mexico for a while. Maybe I need Rosetta Stone for Spanish and English.

Post 33:

So if Toronto makes the playoffs in 2014 AA had a better 2011?

Is that the position?

Hey, not looking to pick a fight. Just curious. So if you want to get your hackles up and go all TDF on me just save us both the nuisance and put me on ignore.

Everyone would agree that decisions made in 2011 will effect what happens in 2014 so I think that the next 1-6 years and possibly beyond need to be considered when judging how good of a year a GM has had.

Melvin has obviously done a good job at determining where his team was in its success cycle in regards to both his team and the teams in his division, but when you add up the sum of his individual moves his record hasnt been as good as AAs. The only one that seems like a definite win is the Nyger Morgan trade. The Greinke trade is looking good so far, but its hard to judge it any more than you could when it went down, when the reviews were fairly mixed but generally positive. The Marcum trade looked like a win/win at the time, but since then Lawrie has been better than him and obviously has more future value and this is without considering the value of the salary difference between Marcum and Lawrie. The K-rod deal definitely isn't bad, but even for how good hes been since coming over its still a lot of money to pay for a 8th inning guy. The Braun extension was looked upon generally unfavorably and the Carlos Villaneuva trade was Melvin giving away a cheap asset for next to nothing.

If you guys are arguing that Doug Melvin has increased his teams chances of winning a championship the most over the past year Id probably agree, but for me that's only one part of having a successful year as a GM.

Everyone would agree that decisions made in 2011 will effect what happens in 2014 so I think that the next 1-6 years and possibly beyond need to be considered when judging how good of a year a GM has had.

This is reasonable, but I think short-term success is the proverbial thumb on the scale when awarding something like Executive of the Year. Doug Melvin had a very clear plan for 2011, executed it, and the Brewers are up 2-0 in the NLDS. I could see giving Exec of the Year to a GM who made a bunch of moves and took his team from 5th place to 2nd place, with the next year's outlook even better. But while Anthopoulos made some good moves, he also made some bad ones, and Toronto both regressed in the win column and heads into 2012 looking like another 4th-place team.